Brandi Lutes v. United Trailers, Inc., 950 F.3d 359

Background

Phillips, a production metal trimmer employed since 2002, fractured ribs on July 3, 2015 and sought emergency and follow-up care; he was told to "perform activity as tolerated" and later a physician advised no work until early August.
United Trailers had a written attendance policy requiring employees to call the main number and leave a voicemail at least 15 minutes before a shift; three consecutive no-calls triggers termination (13+ points).
Phillips (or his wife Rhonda) called in and left messages for several scheduled shifts in July (July 6, 7, 8, 14, 16); a call-in log noted "rib" on July 6; United’s HR assistant and plant manager heard at least some of these messages.
United never informed Phillips he might be eligible for FMLA leave nor designated his absences as FMLA within five business days; Phillips did not provide medical documentation to United and stopped calling in on July 20–23, after which United fired him for attendance policy violations.
Phillips sued for FMLA interference (failure to notify/designate and denial of benefits) and retaliation (termination for seeking FMLA); the district court granted summary judgment to United on both claims.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment as to retaliation but vacated the summary judgment on interference and remanded for further proceedings to address (1) whether United’s prior failure to designate FMLA leave precludes invoking Righi and (2) whether Phillips was prejudiced by United’s regulatory violation.

Issues

Issue	Phillips' Argument	United's Argument	Held
1) Did United interfere with Phillips’ FMLA rights by failing to designate/notify FMLA leave?	United failed to notify/designate FMLA leave within 5 business days after sufficient notice, so it interfered.	No interference because Phillips ultimately failed to follow attendance rules, which normally forecloses FMLA claims.	Court found triable issues on interference and remanded for further consideration—vacated summary judgment on this claim.
2) Did Phillips provide adequate notice to trigger the employer’s duty to inquire/designate?	His voicemails and multiple calls (and wife’s calls) that mentioned a rib/chest problem were sufficient to put United on notice.	The messages were too limited to show an FMLA-qualifying condition; he did not supply medical proof.	Court held there are genuine factual disputes for a jury about whether Phillips gave sufficient notice.
3) Does the rule from Righi (employee noncompliance forecloses FMLA claim) bar Phillips where the employer previously violated the FMLA?	Righi should not automatically bar recovery where employer first violated the FMLA by failing to designate/notify.	Righi controls: employee’s failure to comply with notice procedures forecloses the claim.	Court declined to resolve Righi’s extension; remanded for district court to examine whether employer’s prior violation is excused by later employee noncompliance.
4) Did Phillips prove retaliation (causal connection between FMLA activity and termination)?	Firing was in retaliation for seeking FMLA leave.	Termination was for undisputed failure to show up and to follow attendance policy.	Affirmed summary judgment for United on retaliation; Phillips failed to show causation beyond timing and did not rebut legitimate reason.

Key Cases Cited

Righi v. SMC Corp. of Am., 632 F.3d 404 (7th Cir. 2011) (employee failure to follow employer’s leave procedures can foreclose FMLA claim)
Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002) (FMLA relief requires showing prejudice from employer’s regulatory violation)
Guzman v. Brown Cty., 884 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2018) (elements of FMLA interference claim)
Curtis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 807 F.3d 215 (7th Cir. 2015) (retaliation requires causal connection; timing alone rarely sufficient)
Burnett v. LFW Inc., 472 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2006) (calling in sick alone may be insufficient notice of FMLA-qualifying condition)
Aubuchon v. Knauf Fiberglass GmbH, 359 F.3d 950 (7th Cir. 2004) (employee must communicate reason for leave to trigger employer’s duty to inquire)
Pagel v. TIN Inc., 695 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2012) (jury question on sufficiency of notice when employee reported chest pain and hospital visits)
Ridings v. Riverside Med. Ctr., 537 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2008) (no interference absent prejudice from employer’s failure to provide FMLA information)
Vannoy v. Fed. Res. Bank of Richmond, 827 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 2016) (prejudice can be shown by evidence the employee would have structured leave differently if properly informed)
Wallace v. FedEx Corp., 764 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 2014) (failure to designate FMLA can be proximate cause of termination when it affects how employee structures leave)